### NU M BER 13- 08- 0039 2-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG

____ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _____ M ICH EL LE PU ENT E, A pp ellan t,
v . JO H N P A U L S C H U L Z E, M.D ., A p p el le e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al f rom th e 2 14t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Ro dr i guez, G ar za, and V el a M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am The appel lan t' s b ri ef in t he abov e c ause w as due on September 5, 20 08. On Sep tem ber 4, 2 008 , the Court grant ed app ellant ’s requestfor a n extension o f t ime to f ile the b ri ef on the b a sis that s he w as unabl e to obtai n c ounse l. O n Sept ember 26, 2008, app e l l a n t a p p e a r e d p ro s e a n d fi l e d a b r i e f t h a t w a s n o t i n c o mp l i a n c e w i t h the Tex as2

Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re . Appel lan t subse q uentl y f il ed a cor re cte d br ief on Oct ober 8, 20 08. The brie f faile d generall y to compl y

w it h the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9 .4, 38.1. On O cto ber

21, 2008, the C ler k o f the C ourt n o ti f ie d appell ant t hat t he c or re cte d br ief di d notst ate c onci sel y and w it hout arg ument t he facts per ti nent to the i ss ues or

poi nts present ed as req uired byT ex as Rul e of Appell ate Pro cedure 38.1(j ); di d notco ntai n a c lea r and c onci se arg ument for the cont entions made, w it h appropr iat e c it ati ons to t he aut horities an d to th e record; and d id notco nta in an app end ix as required byRule 38.1 (j). Appel l a n t w a s d i r e c t e d t o fi l e a n a me n d e d b r i e f i n c o mp l i a n c e w i t h t h e Te x a s R ule s o f App ellate Proced ure w ithin te n days o f the da te of

the lett er, and notif ied th at if the Cou rt re cei v ed anot her

br ief tha t di d notco mply , t he Cour t maystr ik e the br ief, prohi bitappel lan t f rom f iling ano the r, and p rocee d as if app e ll a n th a d f ailed to f ile a brief , und er w hich ci rc umstan ces the Cou rt may aff ir m the judg ment or dis mis s the app eal

. See i d. 38. 9(a), 42.3( b) ,( c)

. On O cto ber

31, 2008, the a ppel lan t fil ed an amended b rie f

. T he amended br ief fails to compl y w it h the Tex as Rul es of A ppel lat e Procedu re . See i.d. 9

. 4 , 3 8

. 1

. S p e c if ic a ll y, appel lan t’ s a mended br ief does not cont ain facts per ti nent to t h e i ss ues or poi nts present ed, d oes not c ontai n c it ati ons to t he rec ord and to ap propr iat e l eg al author it ies , and does not c ontai n an appendi x . Pro se litig ant s a re h eld to the sa me st and ards as licensed a ttorn eys, an d the y must therefore compl y

w it h all appli cabl e rul es of proc edure. Ma nsf ield St ate B ank v. Coh n , 573 S.W .2d 1 81, 1 84- 85 ( Tex . 197 8)

. If a par ty f iles a br ief tha t doe s n ot c omply w it h the T exas Rules o f

Appe llate Proce dure , and thatparty f iles an am end ed b rief thatlikew ise3

does not c omply

w it h the r ule s, “ the cour t maystr ik e the brie f, prohi bitthe par ty from fil ing
ano the r, and p rocee d as if the pa rty

had failed to f ile a brief .” T EX . R. A PP . P. 38 .9(a). Pursuantto Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 38.8(a) , w here an appel lan t has fail ed to file a br ief, t he appe ll ate c our t may di smi ss the appeal for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. Acc ordin g ly, w e s tr ik e appel lan t’ s n on- confor ming br ief and order the appeal DI SM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF PR OSEC UTIO N. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38 .8(a), 38 .9(a), 42.3( b) (c ). P E RC U R I A M
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 8th d ay

of Janua ry , 200 9.